When Alabama’s Supreme Court defined frozen embryos as children, the shock and confusion was immediate. Major hospitals pulled fertility services and would-be parents scrambled for clarity on what would happen next.
The debate over reproductive rights in America has long been driven, in part, by opposition to abortion from Christian groups - but this ruling has divided that movement and ignited debate about the role of theology in US lawmaking.
So Alabama’s supreme court can rule on mere belief?
“Even before birth, all human beings have the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory,” Chief Justice Tom Parker wrote.
That’s how it looks to me.
Seems like the whole thing is in direct contradiction with the establishment clause.
I boggles the mind, this image of god nonsense. If we are made in gods image then gods image also includes Meth addicts and sexual offenders? God must be one crazy bugger.
Oppressive theist group argues amongst itself about wha their imaginary friend in the sky wants.
Oppressive theist group argues amongst itself about wha their imaginary friend in the sky wants.
Maybe they could exclusively focus on that for a while and get back to us if they ever come to an agreement on whose religion is the only correct one?
Meanwhile the rest of us could get on with the business of progressing society without their constant interference.
Maybe they could exclusively focus on that for a while and get back to us if they ever come to an agreement on whose religion is the only correct one?
The true religion is yoga classes you take at the YMCA. There. I solved religion.
As horrendous as this ruling is, I’m also pissed at the pro-forced birthers that are upset by this ruling. It’s so intellectually dishonest to object to this ruling when it uses the same justifications they use to oppose abortion.
These people pick issues to be passionate on but never actually put in the effort to research. And not just whether their position makes any sense, but what the downstream effects of the position would mean.
The politicians who write these anti-abortion laws are even more lazy. This is literally their job and they should have seen this coming. They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn’t, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.
They could have put in exceptions for IVF from the get-go but they didn’t, because they are more interested in winning points than writing effective legislation.
You can’t square that circle. If you codify your religious myth that “life begins at conception” into law in order to ban abortions, then you also have to outlaw IVF by the very nature of the procedure.
Unfortunately any theology shouldn’t impact lawmaking.
That statement is rather ambiguous as it could be read to mean it’s unfortunate that theology can’t impact lawmaking, or that it’s unfortunate that theology is impacting lawmaking. Theology shouldn’t impact lawmaking and the fact that it is is the problem. Republicans have been steadily chipping away at separation of church and state for decades now and we’re seeing the impact.
Any hint that a lawmaker is letting religious beliefs dictate their legislation should be an automatic disqualification from office. Politicians shouldn’t even be allowed to mention their religion while campaigning. Instead it’s becoming de rigueur for politicians to affirm their faith on a regular basis, and we regularly have politicians citing religious beliefs in debates about legislation.
If you’re “Christian” the odds are great that you do not believe and are in fact against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The one book in the new testament credited as written by John after Jesus’ death in order to bring old testament style apocalyptic messaging, and happens to not include any teachings by Jesus?
Dude retconned Jesus to increase the “likes” and “subscribes”.
